Essay: Beyond the Flat M@L

[AshvinP]

Or if you want I can do it for you on my account, since he should recognize my Twitter name.

I'll leave that decision to you, Ashvin. Personally I don't try to push anything. For me it's difficult to judge if this essay is of any value because these things are the a,b,c. There's nothing new that one can't find in other ways if he looks.

I'll give it a go. I think the essay poses unique challenges to Flat M@L concept that BK has not heard before, or has not publicly acknowledged before. It may eventually open up new avenues of idealist discussion in BK's ever-widening spheres of influence.

[Lou Gold]

You seem to be evading my question but I'm not sure, so I'll ask again. I completely accept that you are not trying to convert anyone. I am asking if you accept that there are many valid scientific ways (and directions) to obtain spiritual knowledge? I completely accept that there is one way for you and that you know for certain what is your path. Now, I'm asking a question of judgement. Do you accept that there are different completely valid paths for others?

Lou, I answered the exact same question to you some time ago (can't find the post unfortunately). You didn't accept my explanation then, I doubt you'll do it now. But anyway, here's one more try.

There are countless possible ways we can conduct our spiritual activity here on Earth. Through the history of humanity the various peoples have found their own ways to keep the link with the invisible worlds.
Today we're talking about a different kind of link. Think of it this way: you experience your "I". Now you have sympathy for the Santo Daime tradition. You also have sympathy and acceptance for all other traditions but you have chosen this. Yet even if you switch to another you'll still be your "I". You'll change the rituals, songs, etc. You'll still seek connection with the Great Mysteriousness but the essence of your "I"-experience will be the same. There's something that's still the same even if you may have changed outer forms.

In our age we're stepping into an epoch where the link can take altogether different character. Now it's possible not only to align your "I" in loving surrender to the GM but is possible to penetrate behind the face of your "I" (in the sense of the Deep M@L picture). This means to attain to fully conscious spiritual cognition of the processes that make your Earthly self 'tick'. It's no more about the experience of the pixels on the screen of consciousness, the 'output' where you experience your thoughts, but the underlying spiritual forces that shape how Earthly Lou thinks and feels.

Now you ask me if there are different completely valid paths for others. I said it before, I'll repeat it here - if you're asking if there are different valid ways that one can conduct their Earthly life in a harmonious, diligent, conscientious, loving and caring way - yes - they are countless of them. If you ask me if there are different completely valid paths that lead to the reality behind our ego-face - no, there aren't. There may be different flavors, different vocabularies, appropriate for different people - here I speak about M@L, to someone else I'll speak about Christ - but the direction is always one. Why? Because there's only one "I". There are infinite possible thoughts that the "I" can think but if we trace the thoughts to their origin we always reach the same being. For the same reason there's only one direction we can go if we are to investigate the reality behind that "I"-being. There are countless roles, countless religions, countless spiritual traditions that the "I" can clothe itself with but when it's a matter to turn around and explore the reality behind the "I", there's only one path. There are many different ways to approach the gate but there's only one way to cross the threshold of the gate - because the gate is one, just as the "I" is one.

Today we're talking about a different kind of link. Think of it this way: you experience your "I". Now you have sympathy for the Santo Daime tradition. You also have sympathy and acceptance for all other traditions but you have chosen this. Yet even if you switch to another you'll still be your "I". You'll change the rituals, songs, etc. You'll still seek connection with the Great Mysteriousness but the essence of your "I"-experience will be the same. There's something that's still the same even if you may have changed outer forms.

Do you project that I'm not speaking from this "different kind of link"? Do you think I'm speaking of "outer forms"? When I say in my devotional science, "There is no other" and "There is only one", do you project that I'm separating from it rather than celebrating it?

There may be different flavors, different vocabularies, appropriate for different people - here I speak about M@L, to someone else I'll speak about Christ - but the direction is always one. Why? Because there's only one "I".

Sure! M@L for some. Christ Consciousness for others. How about Buddha Mind for others? In some traditions they have different names for the same consciousness appearing in different archetypal realms -- one name in the depths of the sea, another name in the celestial heights, another within one's self -- all one.

BTW, I want to clarify that I do speak for Santo Daime or advocate any path as the "one and only." Instead, I see schools or gymnasiums with something to learn everywhere. I see consciousness as experienced as my 'I' as either expanded or contracted and, when expanded, directionality like inner/outer, above/below (etc) simply makes no sense. My measure of 'expanded' is the felt inclusiveness of my view.

[Cleric K]

BTW, I want to clarify that I do speak for Santo Daime or advocate any path as the "one and only." Instead, I see schools or gymnasiums with something to learn everywhere. I see consciousness as experienced as my 'I' as either expanded or contracted and, when expanded, directionality like inner/outer, above/below (etc) simply makes no sense. My measure of 'expanded' is the felt inclusiveness of my view.

OK Lou. Let's leave it here. Clearly what I try to convey can't come through. And that's fine! That's why we are all in this Great School.

[Cleric K]

twitter

Thanks Ashvin. Nice tweet!

PS: I don't see the tweet when I click on your profile but maybe I need account for that. I don't understand twitter very much

[Marco Masi]

I'm acquainted with Goethe primarily through Steiner's books on him, which do a great job to put his philosophy in perspective. As it's known Goethe didn't lay out his philosophy in some formal way. It's much rather than one has to read between the lines to get into the soul of Goethe and experience how he experienced reality. Something which is practically impossible for most, especially in our superficial age.

I suggest you read Henri Bortoft's book "The Wholeness of Nature". There is much about how an "archetypal seeing" can be put into practice.

[Cleric K]

I suggest you read Henri Bortoft's book "The Wholeness of Nature". There is much about how an "archetypal seeing" can be put into practice.

Thank you Marco! I'll take a look.

In case you're not familiar, the following might be of interest:

• Goethean Science (Chapter 9, Goethe's Epistemology is especially interesting)
• The Theory of Knowledge Implicit in Goethe's World Conception
• Goethe's World View

[Lou Gold]

BTW, I want to clarify that I do speak for Santo Daime or advocate any path as the "one and only." Instead, I see schools or gymnasiums with something to learn everywhere. I see consciousness as experienced as my 'I' as either expanded or contracted and, when expanded, directionality like inner/outer, above/below (etc) simply makes no sense. My measure of 'expanded' is the felt inclusiveness of my view.

OK Lou. Let's leave it here. Clearly what I try to convey can't come through. And that's fine! That's why we are all in this Great School.

MAJOR OOPS. The intended statement was: BTW, I want to clarify that I do NOT speak for Santo Daime or advocate any path as the "one and only."

What I do find as interesting beyond any sense of debate is that my awareness in Christ Consciousness has brought me to a nondual view whereas this does not seem to be so for you. Is this true for you? Again, not for debate, I'm curious as to the bottom line of our difference. Is it a creature-and-creator separation or what? How would you describe the simple difference making the difference between our ways of seeing?

[AshvinP]

twitter

Thanks Ashvin. Nice tweet!

PS: I don't see the tweet when I click on your profile but maybe I need account for that. I don't understand twitter very much

I am not sure either but most likely it's because you need an account. I have been on Twitter for almost a year and I still don't understand some functions... like how to post multiple tweets so they come one after the other on the same thread.

[Cleric K]

What I do find as interesting beyond any sense of debate is that my awareness in Christ Consciousness has brought me to a nondual view whereas this does not seem to be so for you. Is this true for you? Again, not for debate, I'm curious as to the bottom line of our difference. Is it a creature-and-creator separation or what? How would you describe the simple difference making the difference between our ways of seeing?

Please see my latest post here.

[Lou Gold]

What I do find as interesting beyond any sense of debate is that my awareness in Christ Consciousness has brought me to a nondual view whereas this does not seem to be so for you. Is this true for you? Again, not for debate, I'm curious as to the bottom line of our difference. Is it a creature-and-creator separation or what? How would you describe the simple difference making the difference between our ways of seeing?

Please see my latest post here.

I read it and feel aligned with Eugene's view stated following many points of agreement with you.

So, the bottom line is: we know from our practical exploration of both Western "spiritual science" and Eastern "non-dual" traditions that both have their important merits and both catalyze further spiritual development of consciousness. It would be silly to oppose them in "either this or that" way and then beat each other in proving which one is "better". It would be much more productive to learn from both and adopt them both (or at least certain components of them, dropping the ones that are no longer relevant). Such synergy would only multiply the cumulative growth. I'm also open to indigenous pantheistic traditions and I think they can also add a lot to the pool of spiritual practice and development. Yet, it is still important to understand and clarify the specific differences and details between these approaches, and I think we did a good investigation of these things here.

The interesting personal aspect to me is that my greater appreciation of the non-dual came with a co-arising greater appreciation of the wonders and terrors of the dual. This resulted, for me, in seeing no reason for the contest of asserting one view as being 'higher' or 'superior'. My awareness expanded and I appreciated all my relations more.